Skip to main content

Unsuccessful Candidate Is Estopped From Challenging Selection Process After Taking Part In It

In D. SAROJAKUMARI Vs R. HELEN THILAKOM & ORS., the Supreme Court has held that once a person took part in the process of selection and was not found fit for appointment, the said person was estopped from challenging the process of selection. This was in a contest between two Music Teachers claiming appointment in a school under the management of Church of South India. There were two schools under the management- Samuel LMS High School, and Light of the Blind School, which was meant for visually challenged students.

One Helen Thilakom was working as a part-time music teacher in the Light of the Blind School. Selection process for direct recruitment for full-time music teacher in Samuel School was notified. Helen participated in the selection process. But she was rejected, and one Saroja kumari got selected. Thereupon, Helen challenged the selection process contending that the vacancy in Samuel School could not have been filled up by direct recruitment. She contended that she was entitled for promotion to the post, reckoning her service in Light of Blind School.

The Departmental Authorities did not accept the challenge of Helen, on ground that both the schools could not be treated as falling under one unit, as Light of Blind School was a special school catering to the needs of visually challenged. So, it was pointed out that there could not be any common seniority list for both schools, though they were under same management.

However, the High Court accepted the challenge of Helen, and held that she was entitled to promotion, treating both schools as falling under same unit. Sarojakumari had resisted the challenge stating that Helen was estopped from contending that no direct recruitment could be held, after having taken part in the selection process. But the said contention was rejected, and Sarojakumari was shown the door by HC.

Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

Merits and the terms of contract are irrelevant for invoking of the bank guarantees

In Sabarkantha Annuity Pvt. Ltd. Vs. NHAI and Ors, the Petitioner filed before the Delhi High Court  petition under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Act, 2015 with a prayer that, Respondents be restrained from acting upon the letter dated 15th September, 2017 or from invoking the Bid securities of the Petitioner to the tune of Rs. 10.93 Crores and also restraining the banks from honouring the invocation of said bank guarantees on behalf of Respondent No. 1 acting in terms of letter dated 3rd November, 2007. Petitioner has relied upon Clauses Nos. 9.1.1, 9.1.2 and 4.3 of the agreement dated 28th April, 2017 entered into between the parties to say the claim for damages since is not a claim for a sum presently due and payable and the respondent would be entitled to damages only on proof of loss, per Clause 4.3 of the agreement and hence is not entitle to the entire sum of bid security.  The Court found that Clause No. 9.1.2 speaks of an exclusiv...
Post a Comment
Read more

Right of pre-emption under West Bengal Land Reform Act

In Rabindra Nath Kundu & Anr vs Sudhir Hira, Bijoy Krishna Hira being the owner in the suit plot, gifted to Santosh Kumar Hira demarcated 11 decimals of land vide deed of gift dated 27.4.2004 and the latter sold 9 decimals out of 11 decimals of land to Sudhir Hira the preemptor/opposite party no. 1 and well demarcated 1.65 decimals of land in the said plot along with several other plots were sold, transferred and conveyed to the preemptees/petitioners herein by a registered deed of sale dated 10.8.2010, the subject matter of preemption. It is argued on behalf of the preemptees that  the present opposite party no. 1/preemptor Sudhir Hira has no relationship of co-sharership with Santosh Kumar Hira opposite party no. 2 as the demarcated portion of land has been purchased. It is settled principle of law that partial preemption is not permissible and this was what the view adopted by this Hon'ble High Court is Surendra Vs. Abhimannu reported in (1980) 1 Cal LJ 135 whe...
Post a Comment
Read more

CBI has no jurisdiction to probe affairs of medical college:HC

The Madras High Court has quashed charges against administrators of a medical college and dismissed CBI's petitions opposing discharge of officials of two other medical colleges, saying the investigation agency, or any other external agency for that matter, has no jurisdiction to probe the affairs of a medical college. Quashing the charges against the administrators of a medical college and dismissing CBI's petitions opposing the discharge of officials of two other medical colleges, Justice Aruna Jagadeesan said "contravention of rules and regulations may be an offence against the statute but is not a crime. There is no room or jurisdiction for any external agency to investigate the affairs of any medical institution coming within the purview of the Medical Council of India." In identical set of orders, all delivered on August 6, Justice Jagadeesan said "the shortfall in faculties and submissions of fake/forged documents would only disentitle the institution...
Post a Comment
Read more